>In re Y.A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 8/14/13  In re Y.A.
CA2/8

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.

 

 

IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION
EIGHT

 
>

In re Y.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B246322         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. CK 95504)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   E.A.,               Defendant and Appellant.

 

            APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court for the County
of Los
Angeles.  Terry Truong,
Juvenile Court Referee.  Affirmed.

            Patti L.
Dikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel,
James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

_____________________________________

 

SUMMARY

The mother in this href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">juvenile dependency proceeding seeks
reversal of all jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders,
contending the evidence was insufficient to permit a finding that her
17-year-old daughter, Y.A., was at substantial risk of suffering “serious
physical harm or illness,” as a result of mother’s failure or inability “to
adequately supervise or protect the child,” or by mother’s “negligent failure .
. . to provide the child with adequate . . . medical treatment . . . .”  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]  We affirm the orders.

FACTS

            Y.A. was
detained when she was 16 years old after the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Children and Family Services
received two calls on the same day in August 2012.  One of them alleged physical abuse by the
father, A.A., and the other alleged both physical and emotional abuse by the
father and general neglect by mother, E.A.

            The
allegations of abuse by the father were dismissed, but the juvenile court
sustained this allegation under section 300, subdivision (b):

“In 2012, the child[’s]
mother, [E.A.,] and father, [A.A.,] are unable to provide appropriate parental
care and supervision of the child, due to the child’s mental and emotional
problems, including suicidal ideation. 
Remedial services failed to resolve the family problem in that the
mother and father failed to ensure that the child is regularly participating in
recommended necessary psychiatric treatment and the child has refused to take
psychotropic medication as prescribed. 
The mother and father’s inability to provide appropriate parental care
and supervision of the child and the parents’ failure to ensure the child’s
necessary mental health treatment endangers the child’s physical health and
safety and places the child at risk of harm, damage and danger.”

The Department’s jurisdictional and
dispositional report aptly summarizes the circumstances this way:  Y.A. “appears to be completely out of
control, as demonstrated by the fact she has not attended school in nearly two
years and her parents report living in fear of her.  [¶] 
The child . . . is virtually running this household.  [Mother] acquiesces to her daughter’s every
demand no matter how inappropriate to avoid [Y.A.’s] wrath.  [The father] removes himself from the home,
thus abdicating his parental authority/responsibility.  [Y.A.] has been out of school for two years,
lies incessantly and frequently uses complaints of physical ailments to justify
marijuana use.  [Y.A.] runs her own show,
bullies her mother and subjects everyone to histrionic tirades when
thwarted.  She has been psychiatrically
hospitalized, threatens suicide, and has never complied with
psychiatric/psychological treatment consistently.”

            The
Department’s evaluation and the sustained allegations were sufficiently
supported by the evidence. 

The initial referral calls and
interviews with Y.A. indicated that, on August
2, 2012, Y.A. was taken by ambulance to a hospital and put on a
72-hour hold after threatening to kill herself by jumping out of a window.  Y.A. described an altercation with her father
that day and arguments and physical and verbal abuse over the past
six months and earlier.  Y.A. said
mother was present during some of the incidents and was not protective because
mother was “afraid of father.” 

            After
Y.A.’s discharge from the hospital a few days later, the Department held a
meeting for the family that included the parents, social workers, a
psychologist, Y.A.’s educational advocate (Steven Figueroa) and Y.A.  The participants discussed concerns about
Y.A.’s prescribed use of marijuana for shoulder pain (Y.A. has a medical
marijuana card arranged by mother but disapproved of by father); there were
“too many doctors involved with [Y.A.] and too many different diagnoses”; and
Y.A. had not been attending school for over a year.  Father wanted Y.A. to go to a residential
facility and said he planned on leaving the home.  Mr. Figueroa agreed with father that Y.A.’s
excessive use of marijuana was a problem, and that Y.A. would “‘confabulate’”
stories and “residential facilities fear [Y.A.] making false allegations
against them.”  The parents agreed to a
voluntary family reunification program with parenting education and counseling,
and to have Y.A. placed in a residential care facility.

            A week and
a half later, after the father left the home, mother said she no longer
believed residential placement would help Y.A. 
The next day, mother said she did want residential placement (and had
said she did not because her daughter was present and she did not want her “to
overhear the plan”).  But a week later,
mother said she no longer thought residential placement would be necessary, and
no longer wanted to participate in the voluntary case plan.

            In
September 2012, mother said she was working with the school district to have
Y.A. placed in a residential facility, and did not want her daughter placed in
a facility through the Department because she “would be at risk of being
assaulted” and a placement through the school district would be better for Y.A.
because the school district “is interested in neuro-feedback therapy.”  The director of special education at the
school district (Dr. Katherine Mahoney) believed residential placement would be
very beneficial, and mother “may not have the skills to deal with [Y.A.’s]
issues.”  Dr. Mahoney said that Y.A.
had been out of school for more than 18 months, mother had been offered
services through the school district “but mother has never been able to follow
through”; Y.A. was offered home schooling, “but the teachers . . . were not
allowed to enter” the home; and Y.A. did not show up for meetings with teachers
elsewhere.

            The police
officer who investigated the August 2,
2012 incident between Y.A. and her father believed Y.A.’s allegations
were false.  Hospital personnel stated
Y.A. was “very difficult to work with,” has bipolar disorder, “may be using the
marijuana to treat the disorder,”  and
“may be an addict.”  Mr. Figueroa, the
educational advocate, had been working with the family since 2008.  He was concerned about the parents’ ability
to care for Y.A.; stated mother “‘doctor shops’ until she finds a doctor that
agrees with her,” and “has also done this with psychologists for [Y.A.].”  Mr. Figueroa said Y.A. “has a history of
fabricating stories and mother will believe anything [Y.A.] says even if it is
proven to be false.”  Mr. Figueroa has
observed bruises on mother caused by Y.A., but mother “has not called the
police when [Y.A.] has assaulted her.” 
Y.A.’s adult sibling confirmed incidents when Y.A. has physically
assaulted mother, including trying to choke mother while she was driving; he
said Y.A. “is easily able to manipulate mother” and that Y.A. “is a danger to
herself and other[s] and would greatly benefit from a residential treatment
facility.”

            Y.A. showed
social workers “track marks” on her arms where she used heroin in the past, as
well as a number of healed cuts and burn scars that were self-inflicted.  She told social workers, among other things,
that she had attempted to overdose on pills more than 35 times and has used
ecstasy, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines, but currently only smokes
medically prescribed marijuana, three to four times a day for her shoulder
pain.  She said she was raped when she
was 12 years old, but told no one, and went alone to a clinic to terminate the
pregnancy that resulted from the rape. 
Y.A. said the problem was solely with her father, who is always calling
her “a slut and a whore,” and she is constantly fighting with her father, who
is frequently threatening to kill her. 
Y.A. said things “were fine now that her father had left the home.”  

            Both the
father and mother admitted problems with Y.A. have been escalating and they are
no longer able to control her.  Mother
blamed the school district for Y.A.’s absence from school for two years,
stating the district was not adhering to Y.A.’s individualized educational
plan.  She said Y.A. has been diagnosed
with “Bipolar Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, ADD and ADHD.”  Y.A. “is not taking any medication and mother
does not want [Y.A.] taking medication.” 
Mother reported Y.A. “refuses to see her therapist regularly and mother
cannot force her to go.”  Mother said she
has been trying to get Y.A. into a residential
treatment facility for the past two years, but Y.A. has been rejected by
every facility. 

Mother said she obtains the
marijuana and paraphernalia for Y.A. (whose bedroom smells intensely of
marijuana and contains five bongs, four pipes and seven lighters, as well as
plastic containers and baggies with marijuana and a grinder).  Mother admitted Y.A. has assaulted her, and
she covered up from the father various incidents, including Y.A.’s kicking out
a car window while on the freeway, and punching holes in the walls and
“tagging” on the walls in her room. 

Mother told the Department on
September 11, 2012, that she was going to pursue residential placement through
the school district; the next day mother called the Department to say Y.A. was
doing well now that the father was not in the home, and “she does not want [the
Department] to ruin the progress they have made if [Y.A.] is placed in a
residential facility.”

The father told the Department “the
biggest obstacle in providing [Y.A.] with discipline and structure is mother,”
who “is very passive and allows [Y.A.] to do whatever she wants to do,” and
“cover[s] up for [Y.A.] regularly.”

One social worker who interviewed
the family and others in August believed the parents’ conduct constituted
general neglect, emotional abuse and physical abuse, evidenced by, among other
things, Y.A.’s physical assaults on her mother and their inability to control
Y.A.’s behavior; Y.A.’s abuse of marijuana; the mother’s allowing Y.A. to smoke
excessive amounts of marijuana; the mother’s refusal to allow Y.A. to take any
psychotropic medications for her mental health issues; Y.A.’s absence from
school; and that both parents have recognized Y.A.’s need for a residential
placement, “but they have not followed through with getting the child into such
a program, and every time a program is located the mother appears to sabotage
the plan out of fear of hurting the child’s feelings . . . .”

On September 14, 2012, the court
detained Y.A. from the father and released her to mother, ordering a
multidisciplinary assessment of the child and family.  At the hearing, Y.A.’s counsel asked that
Y.A. be allowed to continue her therapy, physical as well as psychiatric.  The court said, “I’m not so inclined to allow
the use of marijuana, though.  The
therapy, I don’t have a problem with. 
The marijuana, I definitely have a problem with.  That is to stop.  [¶] 
You’re 16 years old.  That is to
stop.”  When Y.A. said she could not take
any painkillers, the court said, “Find alternatives.  There’s got to be some other
alternative.  Unless you get me a
physician’s note from at least three different physicians, telling me that she
has to take medical marijuana, then I’ll accept it.  For now, no.” 
The court also told mother not to buy marijuana for Y.A.

The Department’s jurisdictional and
dispositional report reflected further interviews with the family members, Mr.
Figueroa, Dr. Mahoney, and Dr. Richard Klein, a psychologist. 

Y.A. said she had not been going to
school because the former director was not allowing her to do so and was a
racist.  She said she could not go to
school “because of my pain medications.” 
She said she never used marijuana to get high; she used it “so I could
do my stretches.”  She was “in a lot of pain
right now” and asked her doctor if he would write a letter to the court saying
she needed marijuana, but “he said he doesn’t want to lose his job.”  She said she had never attempted suicide and
was “totally against psychiatric medications.” 
Pain medications gave her “really bad liver pain” and caused her to
throw up blood; marijuana “is the only thing this is working for me.”

The mother recounted Y.A.’s
history, with issues beginning in eighth grade because of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">racism and harassment at school.  Mother stated they filed and won a civil
rights complaint against the school.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]  Mother said she had been trying to find a
residential facility for Y.A. “because I cannot handle this any more.”  Mother stopped giving Y.A. marijuana, “but I
don’t know what she does when I leave the house.”

The father said that Y.A. “is very
angry, and she is dangerous.”  She “gives
us hell if she doesn’t get what she wants. 
She lies.  The whole reason she
said any of these things about me is because I said we needed Children’s
Services help.”  Father thought the
marijuana was addictive and “impairs her judgment,” and he was sure mother was
still giving Y.A. marijuana, because “[i]f she wasn’t [Y.A.] would kill
her.  I just had to get out.”  Y.A. “needs a residential program.  She steals, she lies. . . .  She keeps going down this disastrous path.”  Father said mother had tried to get Y.A. into
residential programs before, “but once they see all of this, they don’t want to
take her.”

Mr. Figueroa said he had “never
seen anything like this.  Everyday there
is a new issue.  The father would
complain he’s afraid of his own daughter. 
She makes allegations he’s physically abusive, but she makes the same
allegations against teachers and other students.  To be honest, I won’t be in the room alone
with her.  Everyone is afraid to touch
her because she claims injuries.  She has
been able to manipulate her parents. 
They’ve done everything they could.” 
Mr. Figueroa thought there were “a lot of issues with [Y.A.’s] diagnosis
because there is not just one doctor. 
The mom keeps [bringing] her to different doctors.  [Y.A.] needs one doctor, one primary doctor,
who is overseeing everything.”  Mr.
Figueroa also thought Y.A. “needs a narcotic placement.  This whole situation is the school district’s
fault.”  Y.A. was bullied, and the
“school was profiling her because her father is from Palestine.”

            Dr. Mahoney
repeated that residential treatment was the best option, and that mother was in
agreement, but “has been in agreement before and backed out.”

            Dr. Klein
had worked with Y.A. for a long time, but had not seen her since
May 2012.  “The family is totally
dysfunctional.  [Y.A.] is fairly
resilient considering her home life. 
Dealing with the father is impossible. 
The mother is nearly . . . impossible.” 
Before Dr. Klein worked with her, Y.A. was prescribed medication, “but
she probably wasn’t taking them as she should. 
She said she didn’t like the way they made her feel.”  Dr. Klein thought she should go to a
residential facility, and said there had been efforts to get Y.A. into
residential treatment, “but the school district dragged their feet.”  When Dr. Klein was seeing Y.A., her
marijuana use was not out of control and, given she was previously suicidal,
was cutting herself and involved in “all sorts of street drugs,” using the
marijuana “was not that bad.”

The Department concluded Y.A.’s
parents “have seemingly not obtained appropriate or adequate care for [Y.A.] to
meet her needs.”         

The Department submitted “last
minute information” to the court on the date of the dispositional hearing,
indicating that mother and Dr. Mahoney were meeting to contact prospective
out-of-state residential treatment programs for Y.A., and a decision from a
facility in San Diego was pending.

The jurisdictional and
dispositional hearing was held on October 29, 2012.  The Department’s reports and last minute
information were admitted in evidence without objection.  No testimony was presented.  Mother’s counsel requested dismissal of the
petition, contending mother “has been doing everything she can possibly do”;
“[p]ractically speaking, it doesn’t seem as though [the Department] can really
provide any additional services for this family as well”; and “[t]here is no
risk to this child that is really shown by the Department . . . .”  Y.A. also sought dismissal, saying she felt
safe at home with her mother “and doesn’t feel she needs the help of the
department.”

The trial court sustained the
petition as amended and quoted above, dismissing the other counts.  The court issued a “home-of-parents” order,
saying:  “However, I do recognize the
fact that this is a very, very dysfunctional family, and there are necessary
services that need to be put in place. 
And I do not believe that [Y.A.] should be the one to put those services
in place.”  The Department was ordered to
provide family maintenance services to both parents; the court said, “I want
both parents in individual and conjoint counseling with their daughter.  [¶] 
[Y.A.] is to be in individual counseling and conjoint counseling with
her parents and to take all psychotropic medications prescribed.”

            Mother
filed a timely appeal from the
court’s October 29, 2012 jurisdictional and dispositional orders.

>DISCUSSION

            “At a
jurisdictional hearing, a finding that the minor is a person described in
section 300 must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”  (In re Heather A. (1996) 52
Cal.App.4th 183, 193.)  In reviewing
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional
findings and disposition, we determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or
uncontradicted, supports them.  “In
making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence
to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the
record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note
that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”  (Ibid.)  “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise
independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to
support the findings of the trial court.” 
(In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.)

            Mother
argues the evidence was insufficient to support “the jurisdictional finding of
neglectful failure of the parents to provide medical treatment,” or, as mother
puts it, “medical neglect.”  On the
contrary, mother argues, the evidence showed she had been “very diligent and
proactive in seeking care and treatment for her daughter,” and instead “the
difficulties [mother] faced were from the child’s school and residential
facilities,” not from mother’s lack of diligence.  Mother repeatedly observes there was no
evidence from a psychiatrist or medical doctor that failure to ensure Y.A. took
her psychotropic medication endangered her health or placed her at risk of
harm, or that Y.A.’s use of marijuana for pain management constituted neglect
or placed her at risk of harm from using marijuana, or about >any parental neglect. 

            We disagree
with mother’s assessment of the record. 

First, she cites no authority
suggesting that evidence from medical doctors and psychiatrists is required for
a jurisdictional finding of parental neglect based on “failure or inability . .
. to adequately supervise or protect the child, or . . . negligent failure . .
. to provide the child with adequate . . . medical treatment . . . .”  (§ 300, subd. (b).)  Such matters are not beyond the realm of
common experience and do not require evidence from physicians. 

Second, there was substantial
evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s findings that the mother
and father “failed to ensure that the child is regularly participating in
recommended necessary psychiatric treatment,” and that their “inability to
provide appropriate parental care and supervision of the child and [their]
failure to ensure the child’s necessary mental
health treatment” places Y.A. at risk of harm.  Mother claims she has been trying “for the
greater part of three years” to get Y.A. into a residential facility, but the
record supports a contrary conclusion. 
An employee of the Department of Mental Health, who had been working with
the family since 2009, said that in 2010, they were in the process of placing
Y.A. in a residential care facility, but mother did not want Y.A. placed out of
state.  In late August 2012, after
agreeing on a voluntary case plan involving placement in a residential
facility, mother decided it was unnecessary to place Y.A. in a residential
treatment facility, and reneged on participation in the voluntary case
plan.  In September 2012, mother told the
Department Y.A. was doing well with the father out of the home and did not want
the Department “to ruin the progress they have made if [Y.A.] is placed in a
residential facility.”

Mother cites In re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, 387, where the court
found insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under section 300,
subdivision (b).  In Janet T., the court concluded mother’s failure to ensure her
children’s school attendance did not subject the children to physical injury or
illness, and thus could not support jurisdiction.  (Id. at
pp. 388-389.)  Also, there were no facts
to suggest how the mother’s mental and emotional problems created a substantial
risk of physical injury or illness to her children.  (Id. at
p. 390.)  Mother here claims that,
likewise, there was no evidence the parents’ conduct placed Y.A. at substantial
risk of serious physical harm or illness. 
We cannot agree.  This case does
not turn on school attendance or mother’s mental health; here, the evidence
showed a child in a continual state of crisis with multiple disorders, and a
mother failing to insure she received therapy and failing to do what virtually
every professional said was necessary: 
placing Y.A. in a residential treatment facility. 

Mother also cites >In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th
1251, 1259, where the court concluded dependency jurisdiction could not be
asserted over an incorrigible 17-year-old whose parent was neither unfit nor
neglectful.  (Id. at p. 1261.)  But there,
the only finding that was critical of the mother’s parenting skills or conduct
was that mother and daughter were not communicating, and the record showed the
opposite; indeed, the Department admitted it sought dependency court
jurisdiction because of the child’s incorrigible behavior and need for
services, not because of any neglectful conduct by the mother.  (Ibid.)  That is not this case.

In sum, there was evidence from
which the juvenile court could agree with the Department’s assessment that,
despite mother’s recognition of Y.A.’s need for a residential placement, the
parents “have not followed through with getting the child into such a program,
and every time a program is located the mother appears to sabotage the plan out
of fear of hurting the child’s feelings . . . .”  Further, there was evidence mother failed to
ensure Y.A.’s participation in therapy, as mother stated that Y.A. “refuses to
see her therapist regularly and mother cannot force her to go.”  There was evidence Y.A. assaulted the mother
and punched holes in the walls of her room, and that mother consistently
covered up for Y.A.’s conduct.  The
mother stated Y.A. “is not taking any medication and mother does not want
[Y.A.] taking medication.”  Further,
while disapproving of prescribed medications, mother facilitated Y.A.’s use of
marijuana as a pain management technique. 
Under these circumstances, sufficient evidence supported the juvenile
court’s finding Y.A. was at substantial risk of suffering “serious physical
harm or illness,” as a result of mother’s failure or inability “to adequately
supervise or protect the child” and “negligent failure . . . to provide
the child with adequate . . . medical treatment . . . .”  (§ 300, subd. (b).)

>DISPOSITION

            The orders are affirmed.

 

                                                                                                GRIMES,
J.

            We concur:

                                   

BIGELOW, P. J.                   

 

 

                                    FLIER, J.